Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Heffernan, No. 90-2090

No. 90-2090 | Ohio | Apr 3, 1991

Lead Opinion

Per Curiam.

We accept the findings of the board that respondent did not know of the fraud perpetrated on the court at the time of the trial in the Shaker Heights Municipal Court. However, once respondent learned of the fraud and confronted the Fresenda brothers, he had a duty to reveal the fraud to the court. See DR 7-102(B)(l). We consider respondent’s inaction in this matter a serious breach of duty for which a public reprimand is not an adequate sanction.

Accordingly, we hereby suspend respondent from the practice of law in Ohio for six months. Costs taxed to respondent.

Judgment accordingly.

Moyer, C.J., Sweeney, Holmes, Wright and Re snick, JJ., concur. Douglas and H. Brown, JJ., dissent.

---

Dissenting Opinion

Douglas, J;,

dissenting. I concur in the recommendation of the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline of the Supreme Court, and I would issue a public reprimand of respondent. '

H. Brown, J., concurs in the foregoing dissenting opinion.